Writing in the Margins of My Books, My Bible, & My Life

For those of you wondering why my Twitter feed was so active last Friday night, let me take a moment to explain the significant event that took place at my church that evening. ABC News (Nightline) organized a debate at the Ballard campus of Mars Hill Church featuring Pastor Mark Driscoll, Annie Lobert (executive director of “Hookers for Jesus”), Bishop Carlton Pearson, and Dr. Deepak Chopra. The topic: the existence of Satan. Click here to see Nightline’s website on the event.

I scored one of the few available tickets and brought along my laptop, so I could “live Tweet” for the many people who couldn’t be there. Partly, this had to do with geography, and partly, it had to do with limited ticket availability. In addition, ABC wouldn’t let anyone record the event, so their final cut would have been the only version out there of the event. I also wanted to make sure that Jesus got fair representation.

You’re probably wondering how in the world I managed to write so much, so fast. It was an approximately two hour taping, so I did have a lot of time to cover. But, I also have a bit of experience taking notes at debates, since I did a lot of debate in high school and college. I’m also a very fast typist, which helps.

What follows is my entire “tweet script” of the event. After that, I’ve also included my final analysis from the debate. For the purposes of this blog post, I removed some of the tweet tags and lingo to fit this medium. I also fixed my grammar and spelling errors that I made in my haste to post in the moment (so help me, I’m an English instructor).

My overall reporting strategy was to be fair and unbiased, even though I couldn’t help myself from inserting a few little commentaries here and there. It’s quite possible that once the ABC special airs, you’ll find places that I messed up quotes, misattributed things, or missed key argument points. For this, I apologize in advance and ask that you extend me some grace as you keep in mind the speed and haste with which I produced this document. But as a whole, I hope it represents the overall tone and key points of the debate. I’m also not the only one who tweeted during the event. You can see the full tweets from all who attended by using this search link.

_______

Lots of exciting buzz going on in here. ABC said I can’t take pictures. Shoot. Words will have to suffice.

Pastor Mark is reading from the bible for his final statement. That’s it. “We know that the Son of God has come…we are in Him…”

Pastor Mark “He is the TRUE God and eternal life”

Chopra quoting the Essenes, whom he claims influenced Jesus.

That’s it! Standing ovation for the debaters.

I just hugged a New Ager and invited him back to our church anytime. This was so cool.

______

Amy’s Post-Debate Analysis:

What an exciting event! I’ve never been to a debate like this, and I don’t expect I’ll see anything like this again. Part of the excitement had to do with the audience, who were simply buzzing. The people on stage played their part, too. The most remarkable part of their role was that they managed, for the most part, to remain civil while talking about a subject over which people have fought bloody wars. And typically, people just aren’t civil when discussing this. It was refreshing to experience.

Oddly enough, the debate didn’t focus on Satan very much. The main focus ended up being the Bible and whether it can be trusted, and who is Jesus? Evil got lots of mentions in there too. But Satan himself didn’t get a lot of airtime. And while the debater in me wants the form to be honored a bit more, the Jesus lover in me is glad that the focus shifted. But I am concerned that the editors at ABC will be cutting out all the good Jesus stuff in favor of the limited Satan stuff.

People have been asking, who do you think won the debate? While it’s true that traditional debates have a winner and loser, this setup didn’t lend itself to that kind of determination. Nobody really stuck to the “rules” anyway. Plus, I’m about as biased as you can get. Of course, I think Pastor Mark and Lobert, on the “Satan Exists” side won. But, I’ll give some justification for that position.

Pearson was very humorous, but not in the same way that Pastor Mark was. Pearson was funny because we liked to laugh at him. He regularly set himself up for ridicule. It was really hard to respect his position when he was saying that evil existed, but somehow, it wasn’t going to be in heaven, even though everyone could go there. He also got a lot of laughs, at him, not with him, when he claimed that he could pick and choose what he wanted to believe in the Bible. His credibility went out the window entirely when he claimed to believe in voodoo and spiritualism, in addition to his Christianity. And we all stopped listening when he started talking about menstrual cycles (I didn’t quote it because I couldn’t figure out his point). This guy made his own religion in his own image.

Chopra gave Pastor Mark the biggest battle, but he was also so much in a different camp, they were arguing from completely different planets. While Pearson had at least some Judeo/Christian values mixed in his jumble, Chopra was thoroughly new age at the core. My biggest problem with Chopra is that he didn’t seem to answer the questions posed to him but instead, wanted to spout his platitudes. These little truisms and proverbs were the types you’d meditate on, not logically debate. Here are some key examples: “We can choose evolution or entropy,” “The divine and the diabolical are different faces of the infinite,” and “As soon as you define God, you limit God.” These are vague proverbs with little practical application, and they don’t make logical arguments in the debate context. His tone also made him seem very arrogant. He wasn’t joking with the others as Pastor Mark and Pearson were. At one point, he told an audience member that he was more enlightened than she was, making him sound like a chauvinist and an elitist. I hope ABC includes that little snippet, but somehow, I doubt they will.

Pastor Mark preached the gospel and read the Bible. Can we ask more of him? I should have expected this strategy, but I was pleasantly surprised. His opening statement was the Gospel, how Jesus died in our place for our sins, defeating Satan, sin, and death. When he finished, the Mars Hill people were practically jumping out of their chairs. I was one of the screamers. I’m sure you’ll hear me on the tapes, joining the masses. He also closed with the gospel, but this time, he merely read it. And it was all about Jesus. I’m not sure the passage even referenced Satan. It was 1 John 5:20, and I don’t know if he even mentioned the verse 19, which mentions Satan. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Pastor Mark seemed to be the only one that was challenging each and every member of the other side, bringing evidence against their points, logically articulating why they were wrong. He also defended Lobert, who at one point was under attack, ironically, about her demonic attack. The other side looked bad for continually slamming her and her experience, when she was obviously a victim. They showed little to no compassion for her, and that was the strongest argument against their side.

The Nightline debate airs this Thursday night at 11:35 on ABC. Please be praying for the ABC editors who are busily trying to trim down 2 hours of footage to 20 minutes. Pray that Jesus gets fair representation. Pray that he is glorified in the program.

I’m so glad that I could be a part of this and serve in this small way. Here’s hoping that my notes don’t need to stand in for the Truth after Thursday, that the debate gets fair coverage.

Thanks for your Tweets on this as well as your analysis. I was reading through all your tweets after it was all over. Ryan couldn’t figure out why I had 114 new tweets :o)
I think the fact that the debate ended up mostly being about whether the Bible could be trusted really got to the heart of the issue.

AL: hehe, yeah, i was the tweet-machine on Friday. People who didn’t know I was there probably were wondering what was wrong with me, with my manic tweeting. Ah well. Dan and I can’t really imagine another occasion where I’ll need to do something like that again.

Good insight into the key issue. The topic of whether or not Satan exists hinges on a lot of other issues. We learn about him from the Bible, and well, if you don’t believe in the Bible, then you’ve got a lot of other problems going on too. Especially if you’re like Pearson and like to pick and choose what you believe, to suit your own fancy!

Excellent summary Amy! I loved that line “They showed little to no compassion for her, and that was the strongest argument against their side.” For some reason it made me think of James 2:18- “I’ll show you my faith by what I do.” Looking forward to watching Nightline this week. Primetime starts an hour earlier here so with the time zone difference we’ll get to see it 3 hours before all the Seattle folk do, which is not quite as good as you getting to see it in person, but still something to gloat about!

AL: Gloat away, and while you’re at it, feel free to let me know if it seemed at all like what I wrote! But I know it’ll be late.

Chopra has always been a quack and has come across as arrogant in every interview and program I’ve seen him in.

I lost all respect for Pearson when it first came out that he believed that everyone is going to heaven, regardless of their beliefs.

AL: I haven’t seen Chopra in any other interviews, so I don’t know his standard method of presenting himself. Interesting to know that this was fairly typical. I wouldn’t think this would play well to audiences!

Love what you did here. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Very nice work. Helps you had previous debate experience. I appreciate the analysis, too. I can pretty much skip the ABC airing. Eh…maybe not! Take care Amy!

AL; Glad you enjoyed it. I’m sure it’s no substitute for the real thing, but perhaps it’ll give you some food for thought to prepare you for it.

I just wanted to say thank you. It was a most curious night and I hope Jesus made the final cuts enough to be the subject of the show. Annie is easily the bravest person who participated. She is a wonderful sister in Christ and since the show we’ve exchanged a bit of email and such and I find her story devastatingly painful and amazingly redemptive.

AL: You’re very welcome Pastor Mark. Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving a note on my site, and thanks for preaching the gospel on national TV. I was also impressed by Annie’s bravery in the face of all that hostility on stage. You did a beautiful job standing up for her and for Jesus who loves her. I’m glad they posted so much of the debate online today, and I’ll look forward to seeing how much they include in the 20 minute version tonight. I was happy to have served in my small way, and I’m honored that you took time out of your extremely busy schedule to personally thank me. I’ll be praying for tonight’s show, that its audience is receptive to the Truth and that the editors keep plenty of Jesus in there. Keep up the good work.

Great write up! I was following your tweets that night while lying on my couch in my pj’s. :) Bryan and I are watching the online version now. Very interesting. Wondering how it will all come out in the edits.

AL: Glad I could provide you come PJ friendly entertainment. =) Dan is currently setting up the vcr to tape Nighline, as it looks like he won’t be able to stay up late enough to watch. You couldn’t stop me if you tried. I’m enjoying the East Coast tweets coming in, but they are spoiling it a bit. So, I might just wait to read those until I watch the show.

I am not sure if anyone else mentioned this but Driscoll did in fact quote the portion of I Jn.5:19 regarding “the evil one.”

Just wanted to note that.

AL: Thanks for pointing that out! I did notice that when I got to hear the full version online. You’ll hear him read that portion of scripture in his closing remarks, which sadly, they didn’t play on national TV.

Another comment: I think that it was great that Driscoll had this opportunity and he seemed to handle himself well which would be challenging to say the least.

Chopra absolutely came across during the majority of the debate as an elitist snob. His argument had more holes than Swiss cheese—I am fairly certain that I would win a debate with him. May the LORD be pleased to open his spiritual eyes.

AL: Driscoll was very poised during the debate, which represented well. Personally, I appreciated his humor and the fact that he didn’t seem to be on the attack. Statements like “I love you and I want good for you” went a long way to making him seem like the “good guy” on stage. Chopra’s attitude was a bit pretentious, I do agree. I second your prayer.

Thanks so much for the commentary, especially for those of us who had to watch it online.

I struggled most with the format. Lobert had a great story, but subjective experiences (true or not – and I think hers was true) don’t work well with debating; it eventually devolves into an ‘it happened to me’, ‘no it didn’t’ argument which cannot be resolved. I think people who do not know Pearson’s story will struggle to figure out his position (which I think he is still in transition on as well). Chopra and Driscoll had the best points of interaction.

One question for ABC – if this was supposed to be a debate on Satan, why get 3 pseudo-Christian perspectives and one New Age? It would have been very interesting, and would probably have created more dialogue and points of interaction, if faiths such as Judaism, Islam, atheism, and others were considered.

AL: Thanks for your comments. I understand your point about Lobert arguing from subjective experiences, which are hard to debate. But, it did end up working well for her side, since the other side’s lack of compassion for her was to their detriment. There is debate at the level of logic, but there’s also arguments made with personal credibility and emotional appeals. She argued well from both those perspectives.

I too was interested in their choices. But they probably weren’t as interested in having a discussion on theology as getting some controversial people up there who knew how to make for interesting TV viewing.

Also, I’m glad Mars Hill rolled out the red carpet, but come of the questions asked by the audience from seemingly Christian perspectives were angry and argumentative, while questions asked that seemed to indicate a non-Christian perspective were much more polite – this saddens me that Christians (of which I am one) feel the need to attack the opposing perspective, especially when the ‘yes Satan exists’ side was doing so well!

AL: Thanks so much for pointing that out. It’s certainly something Christians can be working on, how to lovingly ask questions without being on the “attack.” I think Driscoll modeled this well for us while on stage. He obviously didn’t approve of the other perspectives but he was polite and fair. I don’t necessarily think that the questions from the audience members from the “Satan exists” side were much nicer. They did come across that way on the national tv version, but on the whole, they had their share of barbs and fight as well. But, yes, I think we Christians should certainly take to heart how we can be more loving in the way we ask questions and approach those who have other viewpoints.

I just finished watching the discussion online, and none of the participants won me over with their arguments.

I don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Too many times in history it’s been edited for political reasons (see Council of Nicea, and King James). I do believe it’s the inspired word of Man ABOUT God.

I don’t believe in Good and Evil as absolutes. I don’t believe Satan is the cause of all evil. I do believe that the root of evil is fear of the Other. And the root of that fear is lack of faith in ones’ place in the Universe.

I know my place in the Universe. And I’m comfortable with it. As such, I don’t fear the Other. I don’t blame Satan when I make a mistake and hurt other people– I try to figure out WHY I hurt them, and attempt to learn from my mistakes. I don’t blame Satan when bad stuff happens to me. I just try to figure out how to avoid such situations in the future.

One of the things that I agree with Deepak about is his statement about surrounding himself with seekers of Truth, but fleeing from those who claim to have found it. We’re human– we can’t comprehend the Truth. It’s bigger than all of us. I’m an agnostic. I don’t know what’s going on, but I plan to keep searching. :)

AL: Thanks for your comments. I’m glad you took the time to share your thoughts. You’re certainly entitled to your own beliefs, which I respect, and it’s great that you plan on continuing your search. I was a seeker for a long time before I found my answers in Jesus. I can only attest to the joy that knowing him has brought me and wish that you’d experience that joy someday.

Because I’m a book person, I like to refer people to books that I’ve found useful and that I think might be helpful for them. One that’s helped me with the questions of the trustworthiness of scripture were Lee Strobel’s best selling The Case for Christ. For a great overall discussion of the philosophical reasons why Christianity makes sense, read C.S. Lewis’ classic Mere Christianity.

In addition, Pastor Mark Driscoll, the same guy who was in the debate, did a sermon a couple weeks ago where he talked on the very subject you mention, the Bible and how it was created. You might be interested to hear what he has to say about it by watching it or listening to it here.

Nice job reporting from the debate. I don’t think in these situations there are winners and losers.

All Pastor Mark can do is *defend* the faith. The disciples of Jesus’ time took the opposing views of their day very seriously and were prepared to give a defense.

I like Greg Koukl’s (of Stand To Reason) approach. He looks to defend the faith while hopefully putting a (metaphorical) rock in the shoe of the person to whom he is speaking. It is something for them to chew on later.

I think you and the readers of this blog will find it very interesting.

Peace!

Mark

AL: Thanks so much for sharing that video! It was great! I was unfamiliar with Greg Koukl, but I’m well aware of Lee Strobel’s work, especially his Case for Christ. After watching that, I visited Koukl’s ministry, Stand to Reason, and was pleased to learn that he’s written some books and also has a weekly podcast on apologetics issues. It’s now on my itunes downloads list.

Great observation about the platitudes, I had to look up the definition but when I did, I couldn’t stop laughing because although I had recently watch the full video on youtube, you clearly pointed out that Deepak kept repeating, “We can choose evolution or entropy,” “The divine and the diabolical are different faces of the infinite,” and “As soon as you define God, you limit God.”…………….

Wow….its hilarious when you actually consider what he was saying was so absurd, he clearly thought he was in a higher conscious…and higher thinking process, and we had a primitive thinking…